|
THE TEXTUS
RECEPTUS AND THE KING JAMES VERSION
The King
James Version Defended, by Edward F. Hills
CHAPTER EIGHT
Continued
4. The King James Version
Not only modernists but also many conservatives are now saying that the King
James Version ought to be abandoned because it is not contemporary. The
Apostles, they insist, used contemporary language in their preaching and
writing, and we too must have a Bible in the language of today. But more and
more it is being recognized that the language of the New Testament was biblical
rather than contemporary. It was the Greek of the Septuagint, which in its turn
was modeled after the Old Testament Hebrew. Any biblical translator, therefore,
who is truly trying to follow in the footsteps of the Apostles and to produce a
version which God will bless, must take care to use language which is above the
level of daily speech, language which is not only intelligible but also biblical
and venerable. Hence in language as well as text the King James Version is still
by far superior to any other English translation of the Bible.
(a) The Forerunners of the King James Version
Previous to the Reformation a number of translations were made of the Latin
Vulgate into Anglo-Saxon and early English. One of the first of these
translators was Caedmon (d.680), an inmate of the monastery of Whitby in
northern England, who retold in alliterative verse the biblical narratives which
had been related to him by the monks. Bede (672-735), the most renowned scholar
of that period, not only wrote many commentaries on various books of the Bible,
but also translated the Gospel of John into Anglo-Saxon. King Alfred (848-901)
did the same for several other portions of Scripture, notably the Ten
Commandments and the Psalms. And eclipsing all these earlier translations in
importance was that made by John Wyclif (d.1384) of the entire Latin Bible into
the English of his day, the New Testament appearing in 1380 and the Old in 1382.
Not long after Wyclifs death a second edition of his English Bible, more
satisfactory in language and style than the first, was prepared by his close
associate, John Purvey.
The first printed English version of the Bible was that of William Tyndale, one
of England's first Protestant martyrs. Tyndale was born in Gloucestershire in
1484 and studied both at Oxford and Cambridge. About 1520 he became attached to
the doctrines of the Reformation and conceived the idea of translating the
Scriptures into English. Unable to do so in England, he set out for the
Continent in the spring of 1524 and seems to have visited Hamburg and
Wittenberg. In that same year (probably at Wittenberg) he translated the New
Testament from Greek into English for dissemination in his native land. It is
estimated that 18,000 copies of this version were printed on the Continent of
Europe between 1525 and 1528 and shipped secretly to England. After this Tyndale
continued to live on the Continent as a fugitive, constantly evading the efforts
of the English authorities to have him tracked down and arrested. But in spite
of this ever-present danger his literary activity was remarkable.
In 1530-31 he
published portions of the Old Testament which he had translated from the Hebrew
and in 1534 a revision both of this translation and also of his New Testament.
In this same year he left his place of concealment and settled in Antwerp,
evidently under the impression that the progress of the Reformation in England
had made this move a safe one. In so thinking, however, he was mistaken.
Betrayed by a friend, he was imprisoned in 1535 and executed the following year.
According to Foxe, his dying prayer was this: "Lord, open the King of England's
eyes." But his life's work had been completed. He had laid securely the
foundations of the English Bible. A comparison of Tyndale's Version with the
King James Version is said to indicate that from five sixths to nine tenths of
the latter is derived from the martyred translator's work.
After the initial impulse had been given by Tyndale, a number of other English
translations of the Bible appeared in rapid succession. The first of these was
published in 1535 by Myles Coverdale, who translated not from the Hebrew and
Greek but from the Latin Vulgate and from contemporary Latin and German
versions, relying heavily all the while on Tyndale's version. In 1537 John
Rogers, a close friend of Tyndale, published an edition of the Bible bearing on
its title page the name "Thomas Matthew", probably a pseudonym for Rogers
himself. This "Matthew Bible" contained Tyndale's version of the Old and New
Testaments and Coverdale's version of those parts of the Old Testament which had
not been translated by Tyndale. Then in 1539, under the auspices of Thomas
Cromwell, the king's chamberlain, Coverdale published a revision of the Matthew
Bible, which because of its large size was called the Great Bible.
This Cromwell
established as the official Bible of the English Church and deposited it in
ecclesiastical edifices throughout the kingdom. In the reign of Queen Elizabeth
two revisions were made of the Great Bible. The first was prepared by English
Protestants in exile at Geneva and published there in 1560. The second was the
Bishops' Bible, published in 1568 by the English prelates under the direction of
Archbishop Parker. And finally, the Roman Catholic remnant in England were
provided by their leaders with a translation of the Latin Vulgate into English,
the New Testament being published in 1582 and the Old in 1609-10. This is known
as the Douai Version, since it was prepared at Douai in Flanders, an important
center of English Catholicism during the Elizabethan age. (39)
(b) How the King lames Version Was MadeThe Six Companies
Work on the King James Version began in 1604. In that year a group of Puritans
under the leadership of Dr. John Reynolds, president of Corpus Christi College,
Oxford, suggested to King James I that a new translation of the Bible be
undertaken. This suggestion appealed to James, who was himself a student of
theology and of the Scriptures, and he immediately began to make the necessary
arrangements for carrying it out. Within six months the general plan of
procedure had been drawn up and a complete list made of the scholars who were to
do the work. Originally 54 scholars were on the list, but deaths and withdrawals
reduced it finally to 47. These were divided into six companies which checked
each other's work. Then the final result was reviewed by a select committee of
six and prepared for the press. And because of all this careful planning the
whole project was completed in less than seven years.
In 1611 the new version
issued from the press of Robert Barker in a large folio volume bearing on its
title page the following inscription: "The Holy Bible, containing the Old
Testament and the New: Newly Translated out of the Original tongues; & with the
former Translations diligently compared and revised by his Majesties special
Commandment. Appointed to be read in Churches." The original tongues referred to
in the title were the current printed Hebrew Bibles for the Old Testament and Beza's printed Greek Testament for the New. The "former translations" mentioned
there include not only the five previous English versions mentioned above hut
also the Douai Version, the Latin versions of Tremellius and Beza, and several
Spanish, French, and Italian versions. The King James Version, however, is
mainly a revision of the Bishops' Bible, which in turn was a slightly revised
edition of Tyndale's Bible. Thus the influence of Tyndale's translation upon the
King James Version was very strong indeed. (40)
(c) The King James Version Translators Providentially GuidedPreface to the
Reader
The translators of the King James Version evidently felt themselves to have been
providentially guided in their work. This belief plainly appears in the 'Preface
of the Translators', written by Dr. Miles Smith, one of the leaders of this
illustrious band of scholars. Concerning his co laborers he speaks as follows:
"Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we
should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one;
but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one,
not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavor, that our mark.
To that purpose there were many chosen, that were greater in other men's eyes
than in their own, and that sought the truth rather than their own praise . . .
And in what sort did these assemble? In the trust of their own knowledge, or of
their sharpness of wit, or deepness of judgment, as it were an arm of flesh? At
no hand. They trusted in him that hath the key of David, opening, and no man
shutting; they prayed to the Lord, the Father of our Lord, to the effect that
St. Augustine did, O let thy Scriptures be my pure delight; let me not be
deceived in them, neither let me deceive by them. In this confidence and with
this devotion, did they assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble
another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them.'' (41)
God in His providence has abundantly justified this confidence of the King James
translators. The course of history has made English a worldwide language which
is now the native tongue of at least 300 million people and the second language
of many millions more. For this reason the King James Version is known the world
over and is more widely read than any other translation of the holy Scriptures.
Not only so, but the King James Version has been used by many missionaries as a
basis and guide for their own translation work and in this way has extended its
influence even to converts who know no English. For more than 350 years
therefore the reverent diction of the King James Version has been used by the
Holy Spirit to bring the Word of life to millions upon millions of perishing
souls. Surely this is a God-guided translation on which God working
providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval.
(d) How the Translators Were Providentially Guided The Marginal Notes
The marginal notes which the translators attached to the King James Version
indicate how God guided their labors providentially. According to Scrivener
(1884), there are 8,422 marginal notes in the 1611 edition of the King James
Version, including the Apocrypha. In the Old Testament, Scrivener goes on to
say, 4,111 of the marginal notes give the more literal meaning of the original
Hebrew or Aramaic, 2,156 give alternative translations, and 67 give variant
readings. In the New Testament 112 of the marginal notes give literal rendering
of the Greek, 582 give alternative translations, and 37 give variant readings.
These marginal notes show us that the translators were guided providentially
through their thought processes, through weighing every possibility and choosing
that which seemed to them best. (42)
The 1611 edition of the King James Version also included 9,000 "cross
references" to parallel passages. These are still very useful, especially for
comparing the four Gospels with each other. These "cross references" show that
from the very start the King James Version was intended not merely as a pulpit
Bible to be read in church, but also as a study Bible to guide the private
meditations of God's people. (43)
As the marginal notes indicate, the King James translators did not regard their
work as perfect or inspired, but they did consider it to be a trustworthy
reproduction of God's holy Word, and as such they commended it to their
Christian readers: "Many other things we might give thee warning of, gentle
Reader, if we had not exceeded the measure of a preface already. It remaineth
that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to
build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes,
the veil from our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His Word,
enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above
gold and silver, yea, that we may love it to the end. Ye are brought unto
fountains of living water which ye digged not; do not cast earth into them,
neither prefer broken pits before them. Others have laboured, and you may enter
into their labours. O receive not so great things in vain: O despise not so
great salvation." (44)
(e) Revisions of the King James Version Obsolete Words Eliminated
Two editions of the King James Version were published in 1611. The first is
distinguished from the second by a unique misprint, namely Judas instead of
Jesus in Matt. 26:36. The second edition corrected this mistake and also in
other respects was more carefully done. Other editions followed in 1612,1613,
1616, 1617, and frequently thereafter. In 1629 and 1638 the text was subjected
to two minor revisions. In the 18th century the spelling and punctuation of the
King James Version were modernized, and many obsolete words were changed to
their modern equivalents.
The two scholars responsible for these alterations
were Dr. Thomas Paris (1762), of Cambridge, and Dr. Benjamin Blayney (1769), of
Oxford, and it is to their efforts that the generally current form of the King
James Version is due. In the 19th century the most important edition of the King
James Version was the Cambridge Paragraph Bible (1873), with F. H. A. Scrivener
as its editor. Here meticulous attention was given to details, such as, marginal
notes, use of Italic type, punctuation, orthography, grammar, and references to
parallel passages. In 1884 also Scrivener published his Authorized Edition of
the English Bible. a definitive history of the King James Version in which all
these features and many more are carefully discussed. (45) Since that time,
however, comparatively little research has been done on the history of the King
James Version, due probably to loss of interest in the subject.
(f) Obsolete Words in the King James Version How to Deal with Them
But are there still obsolete words in the King James Version or words that have
changed their meaning? Such words do indeed occur, but their number is
relatively small. The following are some of these archaic renderings with their
modern equivalents:
by and by, Mark 6:25
.at once
carriages,Acts21:15
..baggage
charger, Mark 6:25
..platter
charity, 1 Cor.13:1
..love
chief estates, Mark 6:21
chief men
coasts, Matt. 2:16
..borders
conversation, Gal. 1:13
.conduct
devotions, Acts 17:23
..objects of worship
do you to wit, 2 Cor. 8:1
make known to you
fetched a compass, Acts 28:13
...circled
leasing, Psalm 4:2, 5:6
...lying
let, 2 Thess. 2:7
.
.restrain
lively, l Peter 2:5
..
.living
meat, Matt. 3:4
...food
nephews, 1 Tim. 5:4
grandchildren
prevent, 1 Thess. 4:15
.precede
room, Luke 14:7-10
.seat, place
scrip, Matt. 10:10
bag
take no thought, Matt. 6:25
..be not anxious
There are several ways in which to handle this matter of obsolete words and
meanings in the King James Version. Perhaps the best way is to place the modern
equivalent in the margin. This will serve to increase the vocabulary of the
reader and avoid disturbance of the text. Another way would be to place the more
modern word in brackets beside the older word. This would be particularly
appropriate in Bibles designed for private study.
(g) Why the King lames Version Should be Retained
But, someone may reply, even if the King James Version needs only a few
corrections, why take the trouble to make them? Why keep on with the old King
James and its 17th-century language, its thee and thou and all the rest? Granted
that the Textus Receptus is the best text, but why not make a new translation of
it in the language of today? In answer to these objections there are several
facts which must be pointed out.
In the first place, the English of the King James Version is not the English of
the early 17th century. To be exact, it is not a type of English that was ever
spoken anywhere. It is biblical English, which was not used on ordinary
occasions even by the translators who produced the King James Version. As H.
Wheeler Robinson (1940) pointed out, one need only compare the preface written
by the translators with the text of their translation to feel the difference in
style. (46) And the observations of W. A. Irwin (1952) are to the same purport.
The King James Version, he reminds us, owes its merit, not to 17th-century
Englishwhich was very differentbut to its faithful translation of the
original. Its style is that of the Hebrew and of the New Testament Greek. (47)
Even in their use of thee and thou the translators were not following
17th-century English usage but biblical usage, for at the time these translators
were doing their work these singular forms had already been replaced by the
plural you in polite conversation. (48)
In the second place, those who talk about translating the Bible into the
"language of today" never define what they mean by this expression. What is the
language of today? The language of 1881 is not the language of today, nor the
language of 1901, nor even the language of 1921. In none of these languages, we
are told, can we communicate with today's youth. There are even some who feel
that the best way to translate the Bible into the language of today is to
convert it into "folk songs." Accordingly, in many contemporary youth
conferences and even worship services there is little or no Bible reading but
only crude kinds of vocal music accompanied by vigorous piano and strumming
guitars. But in contrast to these absurdities the language of the King James
Version is enduring diction which will remain as long as the English language
remains, in other words, throughout the foreseeable future.
In the third place, the current attack on the King James Version and the
promotion of modern-speech versions is discouraging the memorization of the
Scriptures, especially by children. Why memorize or require your children to
memorize something that is out of date and about to be replaced by something new
and better? And why memorize a modern version when there are so many to choose
from? Hence even in conservative churches children are growing up densely
ignorant of the holy Bible because they are not encouraged to hide its
life-giving words in their hearts.
In the fourth place, modem-speech Bibles are unhistorical and irreverent. The
Bible is not a modern, human book. It is not as new as the morning newspaper,
and no translation should suggest this. If the Bible were this new, it would not
be the Bible. On the contrary, the Bible is an ancient, divine Book, which
nevertheless is always new because in it God reveals Himself. Hence the language
of the Bible should be venerable as well as intelligible, and the King James
Version fulfills these two requirements better than any other Bible in English.
Hence it is the King James Version which converts sinners soundly and makes of
them diligent Bible students.
In the fifth place, modern-speech Bibles are unscholarly. The language of the
Bible has always savored of the things of heaven rather than the things of
earth. It has always been biblical rather than contemporary and colloquial.
Fifty years ago this fact was denied by E. J. Goodspeed and others who were
pushing their modern versions. On the basis of the papyrus discoveries which had
recently been made in Egypt it was said that the New Testament authors wrote in
the everyday Greek of their own times. (49) This claim, however, is now
acknowledged to have been an exaggeration. As R. M. Grant (1963) admits (50) the
New Testament writers were saturated with the Septuagint and most of them were
familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures. Hence their language was not actually that
of the secular papyri of Egypt but biblical. Hence New Testament versions must
be biblical and not contemporary and colloquial like Goodspeed's version.
Finally, in the sixth place, the King James Version is the historic Bible of
English-speaking Protestants. Upon it God, working providentially, has placed
the stamp of His approval through the usage of many generations of
Bible-believing Christians. Hence, if we believe in God's providential
preservation of the Scriptures, we will retain the King James Version, for in so
doing we will be following the clear leading of the Almighty.
5. The Text Of The King James Version Questions And Problems
When a believer begins to defend the King James Version, unbelievers immediately
commence to bring up various questions and problems in the effort to put the
believer down and silence him. Let us therefore consider some of these alleged
difficulties.
(a) The King James Version a Variety of the Textus Receptus
The translators that produced the King James Version relied mainly, it seems, on
the later editions of Beza's Greek New Testament, especially his 4th edition
(1588-9). But also they frequently consulted the editions of Erasmus and
Stephanus and the Complutensian Polyglot. According to Scrivener (1884), (51)
out of the 252 passages in which these sources differ sufficiently to affect the
English rendering, the King James Version agrees with Beza against Stephanus 113
times, with Stephanus against Beza 59 times, and 80 times with Erasmus, or the
Complutensian, or the Latin Vulgate against Beza and Stephanus. Hence the King
James Version ought to be regarded not merely as a translation of the Textus
Receptus but also as an independent variety of the Textus Receptus.
The King James translators also placed variant readings in the margin, 37 of
them according to Scrivener. (52) To these 37 textual notes 16 more were added
during the 17th and 18th centuries, (53) and all these variants still appear in
the margins of British printings of the King James Version. In the special
providence of God, however, the text of the King James Version has been kept
pure. None of these variant readings has been interpolated into it. Of the
original 37 variants some are introduced by such formulas as, "Many ancient
copies add these words"; "Many Greek copies have"; "Or, as some copies read";
"Some read". Often, however, the reading is introduced simply by "Or", thus
making it hard to tell whether a variant reading or an alternative translation
is intended.
One of these variant readings is of special interest. After John 18:13 the
Bishops' Bible (1568) had added the following words in italics, And Annas sent
Christ bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. This was a conjectural emendation
similar to one which had been suggested by Luther and to another which had been
adopted by Beza in his Latin version on the authority of Cyril of Alexandria
(d.444). The purpose of it was to harmonize John 18:13 with Matt. 26:57, which
states that the interrogation of Jesus took place at the house of Caiaphas
rather than at the house of Annas. The King James translators, however, along
with Erasmus and Calvin, solved the problem by translating John 18:24 in the
pluperfect, Now Annas HAD sent Him bound unto Caiaphas the high priest. This
made it unnecessary to emend the text at John 18:13 after the manner of the
Bishops' Bible. Hence the King James translators took this conjectural
emendation out of the text and placed it in their margin where it has retained
its place unto this day. (54)
Sometimes the King James translators forsook the printed Greek text and united
with the earlier English versions in following the Latin Vulgate. One well known
passage in which they did this was Luke 23:42 the prayer of the dying thief.
Here the Greek New Testaments of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza have, Lord,
remember me when Thou comest IN Thy kingdom, with the majority of the Greek
manuscripts. But all the English Bibles of that period (Tyndale, Great, Geneva,
Bishops' Rheims, King James) have, Lord, remember me when Thou comest INTO Thy
kingdom, with the Latin Vulgate and also with Papyrus 75 and B.
At John 8:6 the King James translators followed the Bishops' Bible in adding the
clause, as though He heard them not. This clause is found in E G H K and many
other manuscripts, in the Complutensian, and in the first two editions of
Stephanus. After 1769 it was placed in italics in the King James Version.
Similarly, at 1 John 2:23 the King James translators followed the Great Bible
and the Bishops' Bible in adding the clause, he that acknowledgeth the Son hath
the Father also, and in placing the clause in italics, thus indicating that it
was not found in the majority of the Greek manuscripts or in the earlier
editions of the Textus Receptus. Beza included it, however, in his later
editions, and it is found in the Latin Vulgate and in Aleph and B. Hence modern
versions have removed the italics and given the clause full status. The Bishops'
Bible and the King James Version join this clause to the preceding by the word
but, taken from Wyclif. With customary scrupulosity the King James translators
enclosed this but in brackets, thus indicating that it was not properly speaking
part of the text but merely a help in translation.
(b) The Editions of the Textus Receptus Compared Their Differences Listed
The differences between the various editions of the Textus Receptus have been
carefully listed by Scrivener (1884) (55) and Hoskier (1890). (56) The following
are some of the most important of these differences.
Luke 2:22 their purification, Erasmus, Stephanus, majority of the Greek
manuscripts. Her purification, Beza, King James Elzevir, Complutensian, 76 and a
few other Greek minuscule manuscripts, Latin Vulgate (?).
Luke 17:36 Two men shall be in the field: the one shall be taken and the other
left. Erasmus, Stephanus l 2 3 omit this verse with the majority of the Greek
manuscripts. Stephanus 4, Beza, King James, Elzevir have it with D, Latin
Vulgate, Peshitta, Old Syriac.
John 1:28 Bethabara beyond Jordan, Erasmus, Stephanus 3 4 Beza, King James,
Elzevir, Pi 1 13, Old Syriac, Sahidic. Bethany beyond Jordan, Stephanus 1 2,
majority of Greek manuscripts including Pap 66 & 75 Aleph A B. Latin Vulgate.
John 16:33 shall have tribulation, Beza, King James, Elzevir, D 69 many other
Greek manuscripts, Old Latin, Latin Vulgate. have tribulation, Erasmus,
Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts.
Rom. 8:11 by His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Beza, King James, Elzevir, Aleph A
C, Coptic. because of His Spirit that dwelleth in you. Erasmus, Stephanus,
majority of Greek manuscripts including B D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate.
Rom. 12:11 sewing the Lord, Erasmus 1, Beza, King James, Elzevir, majority of
Greek manuscripts including Pap 46 Aleph A B. Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. serving
the time, Erasmus 2345,Stephanus, D G.
1 Tim. 1:4 godly edifying, Erasmus, Beza, King James, Elzevir, D, Peshitta,
Latin Vulgate. dispensation of God, Stephanus, majority of Greek manuscripts
including
Aleph A G.
Heb. 9:1 Here Stephanus reads first tabernacle, with the majority of the Greek
manuscripts. Erasmus, Beza, Luther, Calvin omit tabernacle with Pap 46 Aleph B
D, Peshitta, Latin Vulgate. The King James Version omits tabernacle and regards
covenant as implied.
James 2:13 without thy works, Calvin, Beza (last 3 editions), King James Aleph A
B, Latin Vulgate. by thy works, Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza 1565, majority of Greek
manuscripts.
This comparison indicates that the differences which distinguish the various
editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor. They are also
very few. According to Hoskier, the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first
edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19 times.
(57) Codex B. on the other hand, disagrees with Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times
and with Codex D 1,944 times. What a contrast!
The texts of the several editions of the Textus Receptus were God-guided. They
were set up under the leading of God's special providence. Hence the differences
between them were kept down to a minimum. But these disagreements were not
eliminated altogether, for this would require not merely providential guidance
but a miracle. In short, God chose to preserve the New Testament text
providentially rather than miraculously, and this is why even the several
editions of the Textus Receptus vary from each other slightly.
But what do we do in these few places in which the several editions of the
Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do we follow? The answer
to this question is easy. We are guided by the common faith. Hence we favor that
form of the Textus Receptus upon which more than any other God, working
providentially, has placed the stamp of His approval, namely, the King James
Version, or, more precisely, the Greek text underlying the King James Version.
This text was published in 1881 by the Cambridge University Press under the
editorship of Dr. Scrivener and there have been eight reprints, the latest being
in 1949. (58) In 1976 also another edition of this text was published in London
by the Trinitarian Bible Society. (59) We ought to be grateful that in the
providence of God the best form of the Textus Receptus is still available to
believing Bible students. For the sake of completeness, however, it would be
well to place in the margin the variant readings of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza,
and the Elzevirs.
(c) The King James Old TestamentVariant Readings
Along side the text, called kethibh (written), the Jewish scribes had placed in
the margin of their Old Testament manuscripts certain variant readings, which
they called keri (read). Some of these keri appear in the margin of the King
James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 100:3 the King James text gives the
kethibh, It is He that hath made us and not we ourselves, but the King James
margin gives the keri, It is He that hath made us, and His we are. And sometimes
the keri is placed in the King James text (16 times, according to Scrivener).
For example, in Micah 1:10 the King James text gives the keri, in the house of
Aphrah roll thyself in the dust. The Hebrew kethibh, however, is, in the house
of Aphrah I have rolled myself in the dust.
Sometimes also the influence of the Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate is
discernible in the King James Old Testament. For example, in Psalm 24:6 the King
James text reads, O Jacob, with the Hebrew kethibh but the King James margin
reads, O God of Jacob, which is the reading of the Septuagint, the Latin
Vulgate, and also of Luther's German Bible. In Jer. 3:9 the King James margin
reads fame (qol) along with the Hebrew kethibh, but the King James text reads
lightness (qal) in agreement with the Septuagint, and the Latin Vulgate. And in
Psalm 22:16 the King James Version reads with the Septuagint, the Syriac, and
the Latin Vulgate, they pierced my hands and my feet. The Hebrew text, on the
other hand, reads, like a lion my hands and my feet, a reading which makes no
sense and which, as Calvin observes, was obviously invented by the Jews to deny
the prophetic reference to the crucifixion of Christ.
(d) The Headings of the PsalmsAre They Inspired?
Many of the Psalms have headings. For example, To the chief Musician, A Psalm
and Song of David (Psalm 65). The King James translators separated these
headings and printed them in small type, each one above the Psalm to which it
belonged. Some conservative scholars, such as J. A. Alexander (1850) (60) have
criticized the King James translators for doing this. These headings, they have
insisted, should be regarded as the first verses of their respective Psalms.
They give three reasons for this opinion: first, in the Hebrew Bible no
distinction is made between the Psalms and their headings; second, the New
Testament writers recognized these headings as true; third, each heading is part
of the Psalm which it introduces and hence is inspired. This position, however,
may go beyond the clear teaching of Scripture. In any case, it is better to
follow the leading of the King James translators and recognize the obvious
difference between the heading of a Psalm and the Psalm itself.
The King James translators handled the subscriptions of the Pauline Epistles
similarly, printing each one after its own epistle in small type. But this has
never been a problem, since these subscriptions have never been regarded as
inspired.
(e) Maximum Certainty Versus Maximum Uncertainty
God's preservation of the New Testament text was not miraculous but
providential. The scribes and printers who produced the copies of the New
Testament Scriptures and the true believers who read and cherished them were not
inspired but God-guided. Hence there are some New Testament passages in which
the true reading cannot be determined with absolute certainty. There are some
readings, for example, on which the manuscripts are almost equally divided,
making it difficult to determine which reading belongs to the Traditional Text.
Also in some of the cases in which the Textus Receptus disagrees with the
Traditional Text it is hard to decide which text to follow. Also, as we have
seen, sometimes the several editions of the Textus Receptus differ from each
other and from the King James Version. And, as we have just observed, the case
is the same with the Old Testament text. Here it is hard at times to decide
between the kethibh and the keri and between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint
and Latin Vulgate versions. Also there has been a controversy concerning the
headings of the Psalms.
In other words, God does not reveal every truth with equal clarity. In biblical
textual criticism, as in every other department of knowledge, there are still
some details in regard to which we must be content to remain uncertain. But the
special providence of God has kept these uncertainties down to a minimum. Hence
if we believe in the special providential preservation of the Scriptures and
make this the leading principle of our biblical textual criticism, we obtain
maximum certainty, all the certainty that any mere man can obtain, all the
certainty that we need. For we are led by the logic of faith to the Masoretic
Hebrew text, to the New Testament Textus Receptus, and to the King James
Version.
But what if we ignore the providential preservation of the Scriptures and deal
with the text of the holy Bible in the same way in which we deal with the texts
of other ancient books? If we do this, we are following the logic of unbelief,
which leads to maximum uncertainty. When we handle the text of the holy Bible in
this way, we are behaving as unbelievers behave. We are either denying that the
providential preservation of the Scriptures is a fact, or else we are saying
that it is not an important fact not important enough to be considered when
dealing with the text of the holy Bible. But if the providential preservation of
the Scriptures is not important, why is the infallible inspiration of the
original Scriptures important? If God has not preserved the Scriptures by His
special providence, why would He have infallibly inspired them in the first
place? And if it is not important that the Scriptures be regarded as infallibly
inspired, why is it important to insist that Gospel is completely true? And if
this is not important, why is it important to believe that Jesus is the divine
Son of God?
In short, unless we follow the logic of faith, we can be certain of nothing
concerning the Bible and its text. For example, if we make the Bodmer and
Chester Beatty Papyri our chief reliance, how do we know that even older New
Testament papyri of an entirely different character have not been destroyed by
the recent damming of the Nile and the consequent flooding of the Egyptian
sands? (61)
6. Modern English Bible Versions Are They Of God?
Modern-speech English Bible versions were first prepared during the 18th century
by deists who were irked by the biblical language of the King James Version. In
1729 Daniel Mace published a Greek New Testament text with a translation in the
language of his own day. The following are samples of his work: When ye fast,
don't put on a dismal air, as the hypocrites do (Matt. 6:16). Social affection
is patient, is kind (1 Cor. 13:4). The tongue is a brand that sets the whole
world in a combustion . . . tipp'd with infernal sulphur it sets the whole train
of life in a blaze (James 3:6). Similarly, in 1768 Edward Harwood published a
New Testament translation which he characterized as "a liberal and diffusive
version of the sacred classics." His purpose, he explained, was to allure the
youth of his day "by the innocent stratagem of a modern style to read a book
which is now, alas! too generally neglected and disregarded by the young and
gay." And about the same time Benjamin Franklin offered a specimen of "Part of
the First Chapter of Job modernized." (62)
Serious efforts, however, to dislodge the King James Version from its position
of dominance and to replace it with a modern version did not begin until a
century later, and it is with these that we would now deal briefly.
(a) The R. V., the A. S. V., and the N. E. B.
By the middle of the 19th century the researches and propaganda of Tischendorf
and Tregelles had convinced many British scholars that the Textus Receptus was a
late and inferior text and that therefore a revision of the King James Version
was highly necessary. This clamor for a new revision of the English Bible was
finally met in 1870, when a Revision Committee was appointed by the Church of
England to carry out the project. This Committee consisted of 54 members, half
of them being assigned to the Old Testament and half to the New. One of the most
influential members of the New Testament section was Dr. F. J. A. Hort, and the
text finally adopted by the revisers was largely the Westcott and Hort text. The
New Testament was finished November 11, 1880, and published May 17, 1881, amid
tremendous acclaim. Within a few days 2,000,000 copies had been sold in London,
365,000 in New York, and 110,000 in Philadelphia. The Old Testament was
completed in 1884 and published in 1885. By this time, however, popular demand
had died down and the market for the entire Revised Bible was merely fair, the
sale of it reaching no such phenomenal heights as the Revised New Testament had
attained.
While this work of revision had been going on in England a committee of American
scholars had been organized to cooperate in the endeavor. They promised not to
publish their own revised edition of the Bible until 14 years after the
publication of the English Revised Version (R.V.), and in exchange for this
concession were given the privilege of publishing in an appendix to this version
a list of the readings which they favored but which the British revisers
declined to adopt. In accordance with this agreement, the American Committee
waited until 1901 before they published their own Revised Version, which was
very like its English cousin except that there was a more thorough elimination
of antiquated words and of words specifically English and not American in
meaning. By the publishers, Thomas Nelson and Sons, it was called the Standard
Version, and from this circumstance it is commonly known as the American
Standard Version (A.S.V.). (63)
Neither the R.V. nor the A.S.V. fared as well as their promoters had hoped. They
were never widely used, due largely to their poor English style, which,
according to F. C. Grant (1954), "was, in many places, unbelievably wooden,
opaque, or harsh." (64) Because of this lack of success these two versions have
been largely abandoned, and their place has been filled by the Revised Standard
Version (1946) in America and the New English Bible (1961) in England. Both are
in modern speech. The R.S.V. was prepared by a committee appointed by the
International Council of Religious Education, representing 40 Protestant
denominations in the United States and Canada. The N.E.B. was prepared by a
similar committee representing nine denominations in Great Britain.
The modernism of the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. appears everywhere in them. For
example, both of them profess to use thou when referring to God and you when
referring to men. Yet the disciples are made to use you when speaking to Jesus,
implying, evidently, that they did not believe that He was divine. Even when
they confess Him to be the Son of God, the disciples are still made to use you.
You are the Christ, Peter is made to say, the Son of the living God
(Matt.16:16). In both the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. opposition to the virgin birth
of Christ is plainly evident. Thus the N.E.B. calls Mary a girl (Luke 1:27)
rather than a virgin, and at Matt. 1:16 the N.E.B. and some editions of the
R.S.V. include in a footnote a reading found only in the Sinaitic Syriac
manuscript which states that Joseph was the father of Jesus.
The N.E.B. exhibits all too plainly a special hostility to the deity of Christ.
This is seen in the way in which the Greek word proskyneo is translated. When it
is applied to God, the N.E.B. always translates it worship, but when it is
applied to Jesus, the N.E.B. persistently translates it pay homage or bow low.
Thus the translators refuse to admit that Jesus was worshipped by the early
Church. Even the Old Testament quotation, Let all the angels of God worship Him
(Heb.1:6), is rendered by the N.E.B., Let all the angels of God pay him homage.
The only passage in which proskyneo is translated worship when applied to Jesus
is in Luke 24:52. But here this clause is placed in a footnote as a late variant
reading. By using the word worship here these modernistic translators give
expression to their belief that the worship of Jesus was a late development
which took place in the Church only after the true New Testament text had been
written.
(b) Contemporary Modern-speech English Bibles
In addition to the R.S.V. and the N.E.B. at least 25 other modern speech English
Bibles and New Testaments have been published. Some of these, notably the
Weymouth (1903), the Moffatt (1913), and the Goodspeed (1923), enjoyed great
popularity in their own day but now are definitely out of date. We will confine
our remarks therefore to contemporary modern-speech versions which are being
widely used today by evangelicals.
(1) The New Testament In the Language of the People, by Charles B. Williams
(1937). As he states in his preface, Williams follows the text of Westcott and
Hort. He not only adopts all their errors but even goes beyond them in omitting
portions of the New Testament text. For example, he omits Luke 22:43-44
(Christ's agony and bloody sweat) and Luke 23:34a (Christ's prayer for His
murderers) instead of putting these passages in brackets as Westcott and Hort
do. As for John 7:53-8:11 (the woman taken in adultery), he does not place this
passage at the end of John's Gospel, as Westcott and Hort do, but omits it
altogether. In addition, Williams interjects bits of higher criticism into his
introductions to the various New Testament books. For example, he tells us that
the author of John's Gospel is likely John the Apostle but some scholars think
another John wrote it. It is usually thought, he says, that Paul wrote 2
Thessalonians, I and 2 Timothy, but some deny it, etc.
(2) New American Standard New Testament (1960) Lockman Foundation. As its name
implies, this is a modernization of the A.S.V. I t follows the text of the A.S.V.
very closely and even goes farther in its omissions. For example, in Luke 24:51
it omits Christ's ascension into heaven, which the A.S.V. had left standing in
the text. In the "Way of Life Edition" of this modern-speech version we have an
illogical mixture of pietism and naturalistic thinking. In the text there are
verses in black letter which a sinner is to believe to the saving of his soul,
while at the bottom of the page are frequent notes which destroy all confidence
in the sacred text, stating that such and such readings are not found in the
best manuscripts, etc. How can such a Bible convert a thinking college student?
No wonder it has to be supplemented by much music and mysticism, fun and frolic.
(3) The New Testament in the Language of Today (1963), by William F. Beck. This
modern-speech version makes much of Papyrus 75 mentioning it frequently. In John
8:57 the translator adopts the unusual reading of Papyrus 75, Has Abraham seen
You? instead of the common reading, Have You seen Abraham ? Consistency requires
that Dr. Beck adopt the other unusual readings of Papyrus 75, such as Neves for
the name of the Rich Man (Luke 16:19), shepherd for door (John 10:7), raised for
saved (John 11:12). But in these passages Dr. Beck adopts the common readings,
forsaking Papyrus 75, and he doesn't even mention the fact that this recently
discovered authority omits the blind man's confession of faith (John 9:38). In
short, as a textual critic Dr. Beck seems rather capricious in his choices.
(4) Good News For Modern Man, The New Testament in Today's English Version
(1966), American Bible Society. This version claims to be based on a Greek text
published specially by the United Bible Societies in 1966 with the aid of noted
scholars. The translation was prepared by Dr. Robert G. Bratcher. In it some
verses are omitted and others marked with brackets. But this is done
capriciously without regard even to naturalistic principles. For example,
Christ's agony and bloody sweat (Luke 22:43-44) is bracketed, while Christ's
prayer for His murderers (Luke 23:34a) is left unbracketed. This version has
been called "the bloodless Bible," since it shuns the mention of Christ's blood,
preferring instead to speak of Christ's death.
(5) The Living New Testament, Paraphrased (1967), by Ken Taylor. This paraphrase
uses the A.S.V. as its basic text. Like so many other modern-speech Bibles in
vogue among evangelicals, it is arbitrary in its renderings. The name, Son of
Man, for example, which Jesus applied to Himself is rendered six different ways.
Sometimes it is translated I, sometimes He, sometimes Son of Mankind, sometimes
Man from Heaven, sometimes Man of Glory, and sometimes Messiah. And this
variation is kept up even in parallel passages in which the Greek wording is
identical. For example, in Matt.9:6 Son of Man is translated I, while in Mark
2:10 it is translated I, the Man from Heaven. What reason is there for this
whimsical treatment of one of our Saviour's sacred titles? Taylor gives none.
Doctrinally also Taylor wrests the Scriptures with his paraphrase. For instance,
in Rom. 8:28 Taylor tells us that all things work for our good, if only we love
God and fit into His plans.
(6) The Jerusalem Bible (1966), Doubleday. This Bible was originally a French
modern-speech version prepared by French Roman Catholic scholars at L'Ecole
Biblique (The Biblical School) at Jerusalem and published in Paris in 1955. It
sold so widely in the French-speaking world that a few years later commercial
publishers in England and America jointly undertook an equivalent English
version, which they published in 1966 under the sensational and misleading title
Jerusalem Bible. The modernism of this Bible also is offensive to orthodox
Christians.
(7) The New American Bible (1970), Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. This
official, Roman Catholic, modern-speech Bible, with a prefatory letter of
approval from Pope Paul VI, has been authorized as a source of readings in the
Mass. In the text and notes and in the introductions to the New Testament books
many critical positions formerly regarded as official have been sharply
reversed. For example, it is now permissible for Roman Catholics to hold that
the Gospel of Matthew is an expanded version of the Gospel of Mark and later
than the Gospel of Luke. Permission is also given to maintain that the Gospel of
John was not written by the Apostle John but by a disciple-evangelist and then
was later revised by a disciple-redactor.
It is also suggested that 2 Peter was
not written by the Apostle Peter and even that 1 Peter may likewise have been
pseudonymous. Mark 16:9-20 and John 7:53-8:11 are not regarded as original
portions of their respective Gospels, and the Johannine comma (1 John 5:7-8) is
omitted without comment. This complete about-face is ominous, for it shows how
far Roman Catholic authorities are willing to go in their efforts to give
themselves a "new image" and to make room for modernists in their ecclesiastical
structure. Liberal Protestantism is about to collapse and fall into the waiting
arms of Roman Catholicism. And many inconsistent Fundamentalists will be
involved in this disaster because of their addiction to naturalistic New
Testament textual criticism and naturalistic modern-speech versions.
(8) New International Version (1973), New York Bible Society. This translation
follows the critical (Westcott and Hort) text. There seems to be nothing
particularly remarkable about it. However, it is falsely called International.
Obviously it is wholly American, sometimes painfully so. For example, it joins
Beck's version and Good News for Modern Man in consistently substituting rooster
for cock. But this is American barnyard talk. Is there anything wrong with our
American barnyard talk? As good Americans we answer, of course not.
Nevertheless, however, such talk is not literary enough to be given a place in
holy Scripture.
(c) The King James Version The Providentially Appointed English Bible
Do we believing Bible Students "worship" the King James Version? Do we regard it
as inspired, just as the ancient Jewish philosopher Philo (d. 42 A.D.) and many
early Christians regarded the Septuagint as inspired? Or do we claim the same
supremacy for the King James Version that Roman Catholics claim for the Latin
Vulgate? Do we magnify its authority above that of the Hebrew and Greek Old and
New Testament Scriptures? We have often been accused of such excessive
veneration for the King James Version, but these accusations are false. In
regard to Bible versions we follow the example of Christ's Apostles. We adopt
the same attitude toward the King James Version that they maintained toward the
Septuagint.
In their Old Testament quotations the Apostles never made any distinction
between the Septuagint and the Hebrew Scriptures. They never said, "The
Septuagint translates this verse thus and so, but in the original Hebrew it is
this way." Why not? Why did they pass up all these opportunities to display
their learning? Evidently because of their great respect for the Septuagint and
the position which it occupied in the providence of God. In other words, the
Apostles recognized the Septuagint as the providentially approved translation of
the Old Testament into Greek. They understood that this was the version that God
desired the gentile Church of their day to use as its Old Testament Scripture.
In regard to Bible versions, then, we follow the example of the Apostles and the
other inspired New Testament writers. Just as they recognized the Septuagint as
the providentially appointed translation of the Hebrew Old Testament into Greek,
so we recognize the King James Version and the other great historic translations
of the holy Scriptures as providentially approved. Hence we receive the King
James Version as the providentially appointed English Bible. Admittedly this
venerable version is not absolutely perfect, but it is trustworthy. No
Bible-believing Christian who relies upon it will ever be led astray. But it is
just the opposite with modern versions. They are untrustworthy, and they do lead
Bible-believing Christians astray.
It is possible, if the Lord tarry that in the future the English language will
change so much that a new English translation of the Bible will become
absolutely necessary. But in that case any version which we prepare today would
be equally antiquated. Hence this is a matter which we must leave to God, who
alone knows what is in store for us. For the present, however, and the
foreseeable future no new translation is needed to take the place of the King
James Version. Today our chief concern must be to create a climate of Christian
thought and learning which God can use providentially should the need for such a
new English version ever arise. This would insure that only the English wording
would be revised and not the underlying Hebrew and Greek text.
(d) Which King James Version? A Feeble Rebuttal
Opponents of the King James Version often try to refute us by asking us which
edition of the King James Version we receive as authoritative. For example, a
professor in a well known Bible school writes as follows: "With specific
reference to the King James translation, I must ask you which revision you refer
to as the one to be accepted? It has been revised at least three times. The
first translation of 1611 included the Apocrypha, which I do not accept as
authoritative."
This retort, however, is very weak. All the editions of the King James Version
from 1611 onward are still extant and have been examined minutely by F. H. A.
Scrivener and other careful scholars. Aside from printers errors, these editions
differ from each other only in regard to spelling, punctuation, and, in a few
places, italics. Hence any one of them may be used by a Bible-believing
Christian. The fact that some of them include the Apocrypha is beside the point,
since this does not affect their accuracy in the Old and New Testaments.
CHRIST'S HOLY
WAR WITH SATAN
Chapter Nine
|
